BHOGPUR CO OP SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. HARMESH KUMAR
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-178
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 10,2006

BHOGPUR CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
HARMESH KUMAR Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ASHOKBHAI KANABHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-1216] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE ENERGY LTD MUMBAI VS. YADAYYA GIRI [LAWS(BOM)-2010-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
DAURALA SUGAR WORKS VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SEED COLLECTION DIVISION, HARYANA VS. RESHMA DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-529] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. GULAB BEGUBHAI SHAIKH [LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA S MELWANI VS. PALLAVI V TALEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL FARM MACHINERY TRAINING & TESTING INSTITUTE VS. SMT. UMMI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-168] [REFERRED TO]
HARJINDER SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SARDARSINH SABURSINH BARIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-503] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. GIRDHARBHAI BABUBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-446] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. LAXMI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. SUNDARI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-235] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN RAYON INDUSTRIES LTD VS. BHIKHABHAI BHAGWANBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-943] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER VS. ANJANA B PANDYA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ASHOKBHAI LAKSHMANABBHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-282] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF RURAL MANAGEMENT VS. N D D B EMPLOYEES [LAWS(GJH)-2011-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA SINGH VS. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-509] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB ROADWAYS, TARN TARAN VS. SARDAR MASIH & ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2007-3-466] [REFERRED]
MANAGEMENT OF TISCO VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT PATNA [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
MADURANTHAGAM COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS OFFICE STAFF ASSOCIATION KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-608] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN POTASH LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-166] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPO VS. SHAILESH MANSINHBHAI SOLANKI [LAWS(GJH)-2014-6-152] [REFERRED TO]
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR VS. THE PONDICHERRY ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-355] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF MANAGER VS. ANIL POPATLAL GHELANI AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-56] [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPO VS. RAJENDRA N SONI [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-326] [REFERRED TO]
UPPER DOAB SUGAR MILLS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-134] [REFERRED TO]
GANGESHWAR LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-372] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD VS. MADHAV RAMKRISHNA LOMTE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-229] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF UPPER INDRAVATI PROJECT VS. ITS WORKMAN SMT A K DHANPHUL [LAWS(ORI)-2013-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL [LAWS(ORI)-2008-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
JUVEDA BEGUM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL, DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL [LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
VADIA GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. PRATAPBHAI DADBHAI KOTILA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-3-189] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY VS. SURESH HARJIBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2010-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
MALKIAT SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-156] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TISCO VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT LTD VS. KRISHNA KANT PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
Appellant is a cooperative society. It is registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It operates a sugar mill. It is said to be a seasonal industry. At the beginning of the season, workmen are recruited and they are retrenched at the end of it. Respondent was appointed as a seasonal workman. He was appointed on daily wage basis. On or about 14.03.1992, he raised an industrial dispute in terms of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof the State of Punjab in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act referred the following dispute to the Labour Court by a notification dated 8.07.1996:

"Whether termination of services of Sh. Harmesh Kumar workman is justified and in order If not, to what relief/ exact amount of compensation is he entitled -

(2.)The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur opining that the workman has not been able to establish that he had worked for 240 days held that the respondent having not been called by the appellant in the subsequent crushing seasons and also having called his juniors violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. He, therefore, passed the following award:
"In the result, in view of my findings on the above issue, I pass an award directing the respondent to reemploy the workman from the season in which juniors to him were called and workman was not called. The workman shall also be entitled to back wages, etc. with all allied and monetary benefits which are granted to his juniors from their joining when workman was not called"

(3.)A writ petition was filed by the appellant herein questioning the legality and/ or validity of the said award and by reason of the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the contention raised by the appellant herein that the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act cannot be said to have any application in the instant case stating:
"We, however, find no merit in this argument for the reason that a positive finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that persons junior to the workman had been retained and it is also admitted by the Management that they had not offered any appointment to the respondent on account of pendency of the dispute in Court. We are of the opinion that had it been the case of the Management that the exigencies of services did not warrant his re-employment, something could be said in its favour but this is not the case of the Management. No offer was made to the workman on account of the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.